The notion that the average person on the street is informed enough to decipher disclosure on most sensitive issues pertaining to world events is incredibly naive.

30 percent of the population believes that the US government has cash resources that can continue to bail out banks, corporations, and pay for unending entitlements. So I mean 1/3 of our citizens isn't able to connect the dots of paying taxes = revenue.

Most citizens do not even know who the secretary of state is, and can't recognize elected officials including our VP. Look how many in the US don't even bother to vote. Most have never read the constitution, don't know the different branches of government, and have never heard of the EU. Most don't know the difference between the deficit and long term debt. The educational system in the US is the biggest failure and getting worse.

So this idea of disclosing more information to the uninformed is laughable. True, I do think our citizens know a tad more today than they did before the economic crisis, but frankly most of the financial issues are far to complicated for most citizens to bother with. This is why a few in the world are the movers and shakers. This is why lobbyists are so powerful, because they are the ones that write the legislation and they know the laws and rules inside out. Our citizens are lazy and not in the least interested in the finer workings of the different governments.

Julian took stolen documents to make his case, which in some people's eyes makes him Robin Hood. There has always been and always will be those that are stupid and naive enough to think that it is possible for the world to operate in some sort of pure truth environment. Nothing that was revealed surprised me at all. What it does do though is compromise negotiations, no matter how flawed, going forward because at least for a while, nobody will feel comfortable talking privately, or giving uncensored opinions.

I always think of the Unabomber and his hatred for technology and wonder in that highly intelligent mind, albeit extremely dangerous, if he wasn't right. Technology makes it too easy today to ruin lives in a big way with one click of a key.

It is strange, but the media don't seem to see the wood for all the juicy trees here.

The one thing that struck me when reading a random assortment of the cables was absolutely nothing about the specifics. But about the way that diplomacy works.

It seems like Noam Chomsky was absolutely right, when he wrote about governments manufacturing consent. Because that is what the cables bear out. They are written in such a way that it becomes very clear, that there are two realities. The reality of the governments, diplomats and highest tiers of businesses - and the reality for the rest of us.

A single action request of February 2009 was posted to basically all countries in the middle east, instructing embassies to argue/instruct the local governments to officially condemn an Iranian air-defense system - complete with a long list of talking points and arguments provided by a document from Hillary Clinton (or at least one signed by her).

All those talking points were picked up by the governments when they did as they were told and publicly condemned the Iranian air-defense system, after which the same talking points were happily picked up by the media without any additions or so much as a thought whether they made sense or not. (It is a general feature of the media to be hyper-focussed on reporting, but neglect thinking.)

Other cables show that publications on diplomacy will in general be directed to have a certain effect - and not to reflect the actual diplomatic relationship the publication pretends to describe. Which is dangerous, because there is such a thing as a *public* need-to-know that concerns diplomatic relationships with other countries!

One of the most important factors of diplomatic relationships is the government, which is elected by the public. But if the public is perpetually mislead about the true development of diplomatic relationships, they will necessarily make very unwise decisions on the voting booth. Not for lack of intellectual faculty, but for lack of information.

Voters may, for example, suddenly wake up in a world where everybody seems to hate their country for having done things that voters never knew of. People for far away countries may suddenly come up with the idea to commit acts of terror on them, even though, just a a week ago, it seemed like everyone loved their country.

Parallels to historic events are, of course, not a coincidence.

There is such a thing as a public need-to-know. Maybe all voters should have a secret clearance by default. And Wikileaks has certainly paved the way to that end.

Blame for this mess lies with the incompetent government of the United States.

If the King of Saudi Arabia expresses an opinion about Iran’s nuclear project in confidence to an American diplomat then the United States has a duty to ensure the details are not disseminated across the globe.

Let’s not be surprised if presidents, prime ministers, emperors and kings cease to share their candid opinions with America in future.

Why on earth is the United States stockpiling hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents on demonstrably insecure computer networks that are accessible to thousands of government employees? Such a system is bound to leak sooner or later.

This is pure negligence by any standards. Blaming Mr Assange is missing the point.

Yet again the United States, still the world’s greatest nation, has been let down by bungling incompetence in Washington DC.

Sweden in WWII also helped the Nazis with logistic supply lines of raw materials even though the country declared neutrality.
After reading the cables I tend to believe that the US is behind these sex\rape allegations of Assange.

"Diplomacy" may well be a favored pastime or career of many in The Economist's target audience, but it is hardly something that needs protection per se.

Here's the deal: None of those engaged in "diplomacy", whether on a nominally "public" or "private" dime, are in any way, shape or form looking out for anyone but number one. They all got to where they are the old fashioned, time honored way; by being just slightly more of a completely ruthless, self interested scumbag than the runner up who didn't make it. That's how the world has always worked. Nice guys finish last, the scum always rises to the top etc., etc. It would take a truly starstruck ignoramus to fall for the charade that some of these guys, somehow, just happen to really be different; because they, like, are from my country, and, like, look good on TV blah, blah.......

Given that, how is exposing a bit of what these guys are weaseling around with right now, or in the immediate past, such a bad thing? If seeing what they are really up to manages to educate just one previously public school indoctrinated know nothing, about the kinds of people and institutions he is really supporting with his tax dollars and "implicit consent", Mr. Assange and Co. has done the world a great favor, indeed.

Also; none of these cables contain evidence of any form of invasiveness that those with the right connections could not have done to a regular citizen. All in secret, under some childish pretension of in being "important" for some abstract something whose interests just happen to line up perfectly with those with authority to snoop. And as long as that is the case, what is so horrible about a bit of role reversal for a change?

Symmetry is good in power relationships. America, and by extension most of what is now the non destitute world, was built on it. Not that most of it's beneficiaries seem to understand that, but hey, millions or billions of well indoctrinated, dead wrong ignoramuses, still add up to no more than dead wrong. Ignoramuses. And maybe, just maybe, Wikileaks may help put some of them on a path to less ignorance.

The release of the wiki-gossip will re-engage millions in democracy. Many left democracy to others because of the press release/press conference type reporting that has come to represent journalism in a time when journalism expense does not offer sufficient short term return to news outlet owners.

Now we see that diplomacy is done by a bunch of folks just like us, struggling with contradiction and uncertainty, and somehow squeezing action out of the soup.

And maybe now our governments will share some more of that contr/uncert with us on an ongoing basis, and expect us to deal with it as citizens, rather than dolts. And then we shall be interested again in democracy...

Don't know just how to link in the loss of journalism in all of this...but maybe someone else does...

ps. Our Economist host offers much of the available real journalism on this fair and fine planet...

On one hand, we are told that "lives are at stake." These lives are the career lives of the incompetents. We were told that transparency of government is important. Except that transparency is to be minimized. On the other hand I read that"I'm not entirely sure why we care about the opinion of one guy with one website,"said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
Russians dismissed Wiki-leaks revelations with comments about "Hollywood characters," and disparagemets about the incompetence of U.S. intelligence. Reading these and more comments, a person might assume these leaks were not important after all.

Then we have the unbelievable story that Bradley Manning, a 23-year-old lower level serviceman, did all this while on duty in Iraq. When Manning was working at the U.S. 10th Mountain Division in Iraq, he seems to have had access to all US military and State department documents. Why was access to all this info available in Iraq? for a lower level serviceman who undoubtedly had responsible superior officers?

Based on the level of Wiki-leaks info, it is much more likely a high level person in Wash D.C. had the necessary access, and collected all the info. Probably a team of people were necessary to assemble so many documents. Manning looks more and more like a scape-goat used to cover the thigh-bones of some high level person.

More incredible is that cyber-security was unable to stop internet release. Forwarding one document takes time, 100 even more time. How about 300,000 or more? This looks more and more like a set-up. What Intel agency would want to discredit the US? Russia? China? Israel? Any EU countries? Iran? Perhaps the release was a form of government to government extortion? Perhaps the CIA for reasons involving disparaging info about other countries?

Then where is the invisible Julian Assange? Amazing what one man can do. All the king's horses and all the king's men can't find him. Perhaps he never existed except with the ability of governments to create false identities.

Kudos to Assange.
Its time someone took the bureaucrats on and exposed some of thier antics. Now we need some of the other world powers "secret documents"exposed.
I have read as many of the documents as I can and have find nothing terribly offensive yet. To say a person is a drunk or a misfit when he really is is nothing too serious. Sarkozy is probably proud of the revelations exposed by these cables.
The U.S.A is in a state of flux with the revelations of their antics in gitmo and the torture of people it doesnt agree with but it is still the one of the best countries in the world to live.It is one of the only countries that could survive the exposure of it's secrets and learn from them as well as react and do something positive about it.

You assert: "The secrecy that WikiLeaks despises is vital to all organisations, including government—and especially in the realm of international relations."

I don't believe it.

Where diplomacy and negotiation is done in the open, I think it's been better for it. Where markets work transparently, they're more efficient. Where public spending goes under public scrutiny, it's less wasteful. Where couples don't keep secrets, they relate better.

The DEFAULT assumption should be that secrets are bad, and you should argue on a case-by-case basis for exceptions.

The article is very confusing. First, it praises Assange, then it condemns him. The argument to keep secrets secretive, so diplomacy will work goes bust in the face of simple arguments. There are really NO good secrets. If something is secret unless it your surprise birthday party, the government that's hiding it rarely has good intentions in mind, otherwise it wouldn't be secret.

My personal opinion is that Assange did us all a favor reminding governments all over the world that their citizens have the right to know, where their taxpayers money are going to: real security and well being of citizens or international intrigues. The latter seems to be the case!

There is another way dear Econ, and that is that management of secrets will require a closer choice between transparency and quiet. There will be greater incentive for opening up the books on non-essential issues and perhaps a greater professionalism amongst staff. Many cables smack of twitter and humbug, not relaying anything vital. Public institutions are facing a clear choice between transparency and cleaning up there act and corporations will face a similar job if it is to be believed that the next Wilileaks scandal will sink a bank or two.

On the whole I think the leaks are very healthy. Opening up state practices for what they are and exposing an extreme aggressiveness of response. The impact will be more like a tide than a wave, however. This will change things everywhere.

Well indeed there are merits to both sides of this argument; naively, I return to this premise -- if you're embarrassed by some act becoming publicly known then perhaps you should reconsider the act to begin with. I am not in favor of conducting mischief under the cloak of darkness...especially if and when it comes to light the fall out from said bastardry has a far more devastating effect on trust -- which is central to the argument.

It is a truism that a high proportion of people are unaware of most events going on around them, but that is not necessarily a good justification for suppression of information. It is not in the publics' best interest to be kept in the dark about abuses of power at any level of government or judiciary -- especially the judiciary [emphasis added]. There must be some remedy available for abuses of the elected, and their representatives, rather than absolute privilege such that they can get away with everything and anything whereby dissenter could easily be murdered by an executive order or imprisoned on some fraudulent allegation just because the allegation came from someone assumed to be beyond reproach. This all being said; every country has the same rights to sovereignty that the US is claiming their's has been violated in some way...so who rights are greater?

The sovereign that has their, possibly, secrets or confidential information illegally relayed to the US or the fact that it's now public knowledge that the US engages in such practices...not that it was not understood already to be the case. Interestingly enough, it is one thing to say, yeah we guessed as much but it is completely another to have such suspicions confirmed. That being said, it is rational and right to assume that each sovereign will act in its own best interests and that it may have to bend rules at times to do that...but, it is not ok for that sovereign to then try and disavow obvious political policy when busted and the light of truth exposes something they intended to be done under the cover of darkness.

Journalism plays a role no doubt but the world has changed -- has societal (consider yours and others' cohort) values changed with it? I am in favor of confidentiality, provided that there are remedies available for abuses of power...that fall far short of civil war...or is that the only real answer? Responding to violent draconian dictatorships with violence...lead by example!

I used to laud Assange like most of you. But I've spun around for three reasons:

1) The info dumping has not taken enough measures to protect journalists, human rights workers, and civilians connected to the reports. Within two hours, the Times found ten to fifteen unprotected names, along with detailed identification information. Best believe these people will be hunted down.

2) From his interviews, he seems to be furthering his own political agenda. He does not accept the same transparency, especially with money, to his own organization. That seems hypocritical to me, and, like he's using this information as a weapon for some personal gain or vendetta. I know the US is a big easy power to hate and blame-- but why is this forced transparency not distributed? No leaks of other nations doesn't that they're more transparent. In fact, on 11/30/10 Def Sec Robert Gates said, "every other government knows the US government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time" (John Adams himself criticized it). It could be one consequence of a democracy, built on decentralizing its information and decision-making.

3) Most importantly, the government (of the US and others) are more likely to clamp down on information, rather than loosen it. They now have an airtight reason: "national security and espionage."I fear Assange's zealous mission will have exactly the opposite effect.

Totally agree. These cyber caracters that feel they have the right to do what they wish make me very angry as we have no say in the matter before it is a fact. That may be free press but it is certainly not democratic. Alan Mackenzie Santiago Chile

The very thought that Julian Assange (or anyone else) thinks that he alone is qualified to be the moral arbiter of what the public should know is a very frightening thought. Particularly given his paranoid elusiveness and reluctance to make the facts of his life known. While we may all wish to be hackers, a hacker is by and large someone who steals what someone else owns. Additionally, by knowing eliciting and accepting stolen ‘goods’ is in itself a criminal activity. Whatever the greater good, we cannot rely on people like Assange to make those moral decisions on our behalf and to behave as the flag bearers of what we should know and not know. There are intended and unintended consequences to what Assange has facilitated, some good, some bad. Private communications should remain private unless they need to be accessed to prevent or prosecute crimes. What does Assange believe to be appropriate to be made known? Will he stop at companies? Will he publish private commutations between individuals? He clearly thinks he can decide what should and should no be made available, and all based on his moral compass, something which is itself is affected by his moral shortcomings. He has started something that individuals cannot challenge and rectify. And in the event of damages, individuals cannot seek legal remedies. I am certain that he has transgressed numerous privacy laws. Having said all this, I would love to see all illicit dealings and decisions by governments, organisations, companies, and individuals made public. I just do not believe that Mr Assange and his cohorts are the right people to make these decisions on our behalf. If he has something that he believes indicates illicit activity, he should submit it to the courts to decide.

Firstly, secrecy (and also privacy) is a device to appear as one thing when you are really another thing. Secondly, all world governments, and most of the world's institutions (including FIFA) are corrupt. It is the way of mankind, and it is blatant in some places and less blatant, but no less endemic, in others. In Africa they do as they please. In the US they buy their elections and their supreme court judges and then they do as they please, under the cover of "legality". It amounts to the same thing - money goes from our pockets into theirs...

Secondly, governments and corporations are devices designed by the people to bring a benefit to the people. Those in government and business have forgotten this.

Thirdly, the Swedish prosecutor dismissed the rape case out of hand... ...only to be overruled a few days later by someone with greater authority - the Chief Prosecutor being then described as a "lower official". Assange's lawyer said on Australia's ABC news this morning that the Swedish prosecutor was acting outside Swedish law - I imagine his lawyer is correct, since he will be defending Assange in any extradition hearing which takes place.

It is not too much of a stretch to imagine that the USA wants to extradite Assange to face terrorism charges, and has leaned on Sweden (and perhaps bribed the Swedish government) to extradite him to Sweden on trumped up charges so that they can then extradite him to the US. Why Sweden? Who knows - some vagary in bilateral arrangements? Less public interest than there might be in Britain?

They would be foolish to do so - else they make a martyr out of him. They would be even more foolish to arrange for his rendition to Egypt for a spot of torture before flying him to Guantanamo. But they are foolish, so they might.

We already know the Americans are morally bankrupt. It seems clear that the Swedish government is similarly blemished - you may not need to read another reader's comment that the Swedes provided succour and support to the nazis during WW-II under the guise of neutrality to work that out.

And the British government? Blair, foolish man, believed Bush, foolish man, when the American arms manufacturers, via their poodle in the VP's office, settled on a nice easy war in Iraq to make a quick quid and secure a few oil wells. Well, ok, a lot of oil wells... Britain and the US are an axis - not for good, as they would have us believe, but for influence and wealth: "Rather in our pockets than Putin's". I thought it telling when a British official declared the Iraq war a success because of all the contracts Britain had secured...

It is all sick-making. But the Wikileaks stuff is riveting...

ps: ... can't wait for the stuff on "America's Largest Bank" to hit the streets. And I, for one, won't be satisfied until ALL THE SECRETS ARE OUT.